Congo: UK Contribution to Multinational Force in Bunia

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the present United Kingdom contribution to the new European Union force in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo; and what plans they have to vary or increase it.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) said in another place on 23 June (Official Report, col. 702) that the UK is sending about 70 Royal Engineers to the Interim Emergency Multinational Force in Bunia (north-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo). With support staff and headquarters-based officers, total UK deployment will be around 85 personnel.
	There are no plans at this stage to vary or increase this contribution.

Sudan

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is currently in charge of the verification and monitoring team (VMT) in Sudan; and what response the VMT is making to recent reports of helicopter gunship deployment by the Government of Sudan to Eastern Upper Nile.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Special Envoy, Lt-General Sumbeiywo, is in charge of the verification and monitoring team (VMT). The VMT is investigating an alleged breach of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on cessation of hostilities in the Mading area in Eastern Upper Nile on 3 June. The MoU Channel of Communications Committee has been briefed on the status of current investigations but at this stage the VMT's findings remain confidential to Lt-General Sumbeiywo.

Sudan

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they will take if reports of helicopter gunship deployment by the Government of Sudan to Eastern Upper Nile are verified.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We will await the outcome of the verification and monitoring team's final report into the alleged incident in Mading in Eastern Upper Nile on 3 June before considering what response we may make. I will write to the noble Baroness once I have seen this report.

EU: Decision-making Procedures

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 17 June (WA 90), whether they will set out in the Official Report the policy areas which became subject to qualified majority voting or co-decision after entry into force of the Single European Act 1987.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Under the Single European Act, 12 articles were either moved to, or were introduced subject to, qualified majority voting:
	altering or suspending autonomously duties in the Common Commercial Tariff;
	free movement of workers;
	freedom of third country nationals established in the Community to provide services;
	co-ordination of exchange policies to liberalise movement of capital;
	extension of the Treaty Title on Transport to sea and air transport;
	guidelines and conditions for establishing the internal market;
	measures establishing the internal market (other than fiscal provisions, those relating to the free movement of persons or the rights and interests of employed persons;
	mutual recognition of national measures in areas affecting the internal market that had not yet been harmonised;
	health and safety of workers;
	implementing decisions relating to the European Regional Development Fund;
	adoption of specific R&D programmes within the unanimously agreed multi-annual framework programme; and
	adoption of certain measures in Environment Title if this had been approved unanimously in the Council.
	No articles were subject to the co-decision procedure as this was introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht.

EU: Decision-making Procedures

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 17 June (WA 90), whether they will set out in the Official Report the policy areas which became subject to qualified majority voting or co-decision after entry into force of the Treaty on European Union 1993 (Maastricht).

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: In the Treaty of Maastricht, 30 articles were either moved to, or introduced subject to, qualified majority voting:
	decisions implementing common foreign and security policy joint actions, if use of QMV is agreed unanimously by Council;
	decisions implementing Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) joint actions, if use of QMV is agreed unanimously in Council;
	potentially, application of Article 100c of EC Treaty to some aspects of JHA, if unanimously agreed by the Council;
	movement of capital to or from third countries;
	safeguard measures;
	movement of capital and payments to implement sanctions;
	establishing a list of third country nationals who require visas;
	broad economic guidelines;
	bail-out fund in the event of a natural disaster;
	definitions for applying prohibition on assuming financial liability;
	excessive deficits procedure;
	harmonising coins;
	ECSB statutes;
	exchange rate agreements;
	Economic and Financial Committee;
	consultation of Economic and Monetary Institute (EMI);
	mutual assistance in the event of balance of payments difficulties;
	decision on the position of the Community at international level as regards issues of particular relevance to EMU;
	protective measures (EMU);
	moving to stage III of EMU;
	stage III EMU derogations;
	education;
	public health;
	consumer protection;
	TENs guidelines;
	development co-operation;
	regulations and conditions for performance of ombudsman's tasks;
	allowances of members of ESC;
	measures to implement sanctions;
	transport safety;
	certain environmental measures; and
	determination of salaries, allowances and pensions of officials of Commission, ECJ and Court of Auditors.
	Fifteen articles were made subject to the co-decision procedure:
	free movement of workers;
	right of establishment;
	treatment of foreign nationals;
	mutual recognition of diplomas;
	provisions on the self-employed;
	free movement of services;
	internal market measures;
	mutual recognition in the internal market context;
	education;
	culture (with unanimity);
	public health;
	consumer protection;
	TENs guidelines;
	multi-annual framework R&D programmes (with unanimity), and
	environment.

EU: Decision-making Procedures

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 17 June (WA 90), whether they will set out in the Official Report the policy areas which became subject to qualified majority voting or co-decision after entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam 1999.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, 24 articles were moved to, or were introduced subject to, qualified majority voting (QMV):
	suspension of member state rights (including voting rights) if breach of fundamental principles is established by unanimity, and subsequently variation or revocation of such measures (Treaty of European Union (TEU) & Treaty Establishing the Economic Community (TEC));
	adoption of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) joint actions, common positions or any other decision based on a common strategy (subject to an emergency brake, and no QMV for decisions have military or defence implications);
	any decision implementing a CFSP joint action or common position (subject to an emergency brake, and no QMV for decisions have military or defence implications);
	measures to implement certain Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) decisions;
	authorisation of closer co-operation to develop the area of freedom, security and justice (subject to an emergency brake);
	authorisation of closer co-operation in the TEC (subject to emergency brake);
	compensatory aid for imports of raw materials;
	co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment for foreign nationals (right of establishment);
	establishing list of third countries whose nationals who are exempt from visas (only European Parliament (EP) consultation) and a uniform format for visas;
	procedures and conditions for issuing visas and rules on a uniform visa (five years from e.i.f. of Amsterdam Treaty);
	adoption of the Research Framework Programme;
	adapting or supplementing the Research Framework Programme;
	setting up of joint undertakings in R&T development;
	employment guidelines (only EP consultation);
	employment incentive measures;
	Customs co-operation;
	social exclusion;
	approval of agreements concluded by management and labour;
	equality of opportunity and treatment of men and women;
	public health;
	transparency (access to documents);
	combating fraud against the Community's financial interests;
	statistics;
	establishment of an independent advisory body on data protection; and
	outermost regions.
	Under the Treaty of Amsterdam, 27 Articles were made subject to the Co-decision procedure:
	employment incentive measures;
	rules to prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality;
	provisions for facilitating the exercise of citizens' rights to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states (with unanimity);
	internal market-related rules on social security for Community immigrant workers (with unanimity);
	certain directives on training and access to the professions (with unanimity);
	co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action for special treatment of foreign nationals;
	co-ordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states concerning the taking up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons;
	procedures and conditions for issuing visas and rules on a uniform visa (five years from e.i.f. of Amsterdam Treaty);
	common rules applicable to international transport to and from the territory of a member state or passing across the territory of one or more member states; the conditions under which non-resident carriers may operate transport services within a member state; and measures to improve transport safety;
	transport policy (sea & air transport);
	employment incentive measures;
	customs co-operation;
	social policy articles formerly in the Social Protocol, except for those aspects subject to unanimity;
	equal opportunities and treatment for men and women (social policy);
	implementing decisions relating to the European Social Fund;
	measures to contribute to the achievement of vocational training objectives;
	public health: minimum requirements regarding quality and safety of organs; veterinary and phytosanitary measures with the direct objective of the protection of public health;
	public health: other measures;
	European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) implementing decisions;
	adoption of certain research measures;
	Community action in order to achieve its environmental objectives;
	development co-operation;
	general principles for transparency (access to documents);
	combating fraud affecting the financial interests of the Community;
	statistics, and
	establishment of independent advisory authority on data protection.

EU: Decision-making Procedures

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 17 June (WA 90), whether they will set out in the Official Report the policy areas which became subject to qualified majority voting or co-decision after entry into force of the Treaty of Nice 2002.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Under the Treaty of Nice 46 Articles were moved to, or were introduced subject to, qualified majority voting:
	determination that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a member state of fundamental principles (four-fifths majority required) (Treaty on European Union (TEU) Art. 7(1));
	appointment of common foreign and security policy (CFSP) special representatives (TEU Art. 23(2)) with emergency brake;
	conclusion of international agreements in order to implement a CFSP joint action of common position, or on matters covered by TEU Titles V and VI for which QMV is required for the adoption of internal decisions or measures (TEU Art. 24);
	procedure for authorising enhanced co-operation under TEU Title V (TEU Arts. 27(c) & 44) with emergency brake;
	decision to hold in abeyance a member state's request to participate in a CFSP enhanced co-operation activity (TEU Art. 27(e));
	procedure for establishing enhanced co-operation under TEU Title VI, following referral to the European Council (TEU Art. 40a);
	procedure for authorising enhanced co-operation under the Treaty Establishing the Economic Community (TEC), following referral to the European Council (TEC Art. 11);
	incentive measures (excluding harmonisation) to combat discrimination (TEC Art. 13(2));
	provisions facilitating the exercise of the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside within the territory of the member states—with caveats (TEC Art. 18);
	measures establishing standards and procedures for carrying out checks on persons at external borders (following agreement on measures concerning the crossing of such borders) (from 1 May 2004) (Political Declaration on TEC Art. 67);
	measures establishing the conditions under which third country nationals shall have the freedom to travel during a period of no more than three months (from 1 May 2004) (Political Declaration on TEC Art. 67);
	criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for considering asylum applications (TEC Art. 63(1)(a)), provided that the Council has already unanimously defined common rules and basic principles;
	minimum standards on reception of asylum seekers (TEC Art. 63(1)(b)), provided that the Council has already unanimously defined common rules and basic principles;
	minimum standards with respect to the qualification of third country nationals as refugees (TEC Art. 63(1)(c)), provided that the Council has already unanimously defined common rules and basic principles;
	minimum standards on the procedures in member states for granting or withdrawing refugee status (TEC Art. 63(1)(d)), provided that the Council has already unanimously defined common rules and basic principles;
	minimum standards for giving temporary protection to displaced persons/refugees (TEC Art. 63(2)(a)), provided that the Council has already unanimously defined common rules and basic principles;
	measures on illegal immigration and illegal residence (from 1 May 2004) (Political Declaration on TEC Art. 67);
	measures improving and simplifying co-operation in civil law matters (except family law cases), inc. cross-border service of judicial documents, evidence taking, recognition/enforcement of decisions (TEC Art. 65(a));
	measures promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in member states concerns the conflict of laws and of jurisdictions (except family law cases) (TEC Art. 65(b));
	measures eliminating obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings (except family law cases) (TEC Art. 65(c));
	measures to ensure co-operation between the relevant departments of the administrations of the member states, and between those departments and the Commission, in the areas covered by Title IV (from 1 May 2004) (TEC Art. 66);
	measures in the event of severe difficulties in the supply of certain products (TEC Art. 100(1));
	community financial assistance, under certain conditions, to a member state which is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional circumstances beyond its control (TEC Art. 100(2));
	measures necessary for the rapid introduction of the euro in member states without a derogation (TEC Art. 123(4));
	negotiation and conclusion of international agreements on trade in services and trade-related aspects of intellectual property (with caveats) (TEC Art. 133(5));
	potentially, measures in some areas of social protection, following agreement by unanimity to move to QMV (TEC Art. 137(2));
	measures supporting the action of member states on industry matters (TEC Art. 157(3));
	specific actions for economic and social cohesion outside the structural funds (Tec Art. 159);
	From 1 January 2007 asks, priority objectives, organisation and rules applicable to the structural funds (TEC Art. 161(1));
	creation of a cohesion fund (delayed deadline) (TEC Art. 161(2));
	economic, financial and technical co-operation with third countries (TEC Art. 181a);
	approval of the MEPs' statute (except rules or conditions relating to the taxation of MEPs) (TEC Art. 190(5));
	laying down regulations governing political parties at European level, inc. funding (TEC Art. 191(2));
	appointment of the Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General of the Council (TEC Art. 207(2));
	extension of the scope of Art. 210 to cover the salaries, allowances and pensions of the members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance (CFI) (TEC Art. 210);
	nomination and appointment of the President and members of the Commission (TEC Art. 214);
	filling a vacancy in the Commission caused by death, compulsory retirement or resignation (TEC Art. 215);
	approval of the European Court of Justice's rules of procedure (TEC Art. 223(6));
	approval of the CFI's rules of procedure (TEC Art. 224(5));
	approval of the Judicial Panels' rules of procedure (TEC Art. 225a(5));
	appointment of the members of the Court of Auditors (TEC Art. 247(3));
	approval of the Court of Auditors' rules of procedure (TEC Art. 248(4));
	appointment of the Economic and Social Committee members (TEC Art. 259(1));
	appointment of the Committee of the Regions members (TEC Art. 263); and
	financial Regulations/rules concerning the responsibility of financial controllers, authorising officers and accounting officers as of 2007 (TEC Art. 279(1)(a&b)).
	Under the Treaty of Nice, 16 articles and key sub-articles were made subject to the co-decision procedure:
	incentive measures (excluding harmonisation) to combat discrimination (TEC Art. 13(2));
	measures on the crossing of external borders establishing standards and procedures for carrying out checks on persons at such borders (following agreement on measures concerning the crossing of external borders) (Political Declaration on TEC Art. 62(2)(a));
	measures establishing the conditions under which third country nationals shall have the freedom to travel during a period of no more than three months (from 1 May 2004) (Political Declaration on TEC Art. 62(3);
	criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for considering asylum applications (TEC Art. 63(1)(a));
	minimum standards on reception of asylum seekers (TEC Art. 63(1)(b));
	minimum standards with respect to the qualification of third country nationals as refugees (TEC Art. 63(1)(c);
	minimum standards on the procedures in member states for granting or withdrawing refugee status (TEC Art. 63(1)(d));
	minimum standards for giving temporary protection to displaced persons/refugees (TEC Art. 63(2)(a));
	measures on illegal immigration and illegal residence (from 1 May 2004) (Political Declaration on TEC Art. 63(3)(b));
	measures improving and simplifying the system for cross-border service of judicial documents (except family law cases) (TEC Art. 65(a));
	measures promoting the compatibility of the rules applicable in member states concerning the conflict of laws and of jurisdictions (except family law cases) (TEC Art. 65(b));
	measures eliminating obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings (except family law cases) (TEC Art. 65(c));
	potentially, measures in some areas of social protection, following agreement by unanimity to move to QMV and codecision (TEC Art. 137(2));
	measures supporting the action of member states on industry matters (TEC Art. 157(3));
	specific actions for economic and social cohesion outside the structural funds (TEC Art. 159); and
	laying down regulations governing political parties at European level, inc. funding (TEC Art. 191(2)).

Turks and Caicos Islands: General Election 24 April 2003

Lord Harris of Haringey: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the outcome of the two petitions filed after the general election in the Turks and Caicos Islands on 24 April 2003.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Following General Elections in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) on 24 April, which saw the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDM) returned for a third term, the opposition Progressive National Party (PNP) filed election petitions against the results in two of the 13 constituencies. On 19 June, the Chief Justice declared the results in both districts void with the result that a fresh election was required in each one. This put the governing PDM in a minority in the Legislative Council. The Chief Minister, the Hon. Derek Taylor, asked the Governor to dissolve the Legislative Council and to call a new general election.
	The Governor, acting in accordance with the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands, told the leaders of both parties on 23 June that he was denying both the PDM's request for a new general election and the PNP's request for the immediate appointment of their leader as Chief Minister, and that he would issue writs for by-elections in the two constituencies affected to be held on 7 August.
	This was a difficult decision to take. The Governor weighed the arguments carefully. We support the Governor's decision.

Future Rapid Effect System and FV430 Vehicles

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will make an announcement concerning the next stage of the Future Rapid Effect System; and when the last of the FV430 series of vehicles will be withdrawn from service.

Lord Bach: We are currently considering the Initial Gate for the Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) assessment phase and we expect to make an announcement shortly.
	The withdrawal from service of the FV430 series of vehicles is linked to wider work on the future composition of the armoured fighting vehicle fleet. This is currently under consideration.

RAF Stations: Brize Norton, Lyneham andSt Mawgan

Lord Merlyn-Rees: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether a decision has been reached following the strategic review of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St Mawgan.

Lord Bach: On 9 November 2001, in another place, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces announced a strategic review of the future roles of RAF Brize Norton, RAF Lyneham and RAF St Mawgan, anticipating the arrival of the future strategic tanker aircraft and the A400M around the end of the decade. The introduction of these modern aircraft will provide enhanced operational capability whilst creating spare capacity at RAF Brize Norton and RAF Lyneham. The airfield at RAF St Mawgan was included in the review as it too was recognised as having spare capacity.
	The first stage of the review was the selection of a base for the A400M. My right honourable friend announced on 16 August 2002 that he had accepted the study team's recommendation that RAF Brize Norton represented the best use of defence assets in this respect, at the optimum cost to the taxpayer. Prior to this, he announced in another place on 13 February 2002 (Official Report, cols. 363–364W) that the future strategic tanker aircraft would also be based at Brize Norton.
	We are now able to inform the House that the second stage of the review, looking at the future use of the three stations in the light of these earlier decisions, has now concluded. We have considered the recommendations and have decided that the RAF's air transport and air refuelling fleets should be based at RAF Brize Norton by 2012. This includes the Hercules C130J aircraft currently based at RAF Lyneham which will transfer to RAF Brize Norton. We intend that the C130K fleet will remain at RAF Lyneham until the aircraft goes out of service by 2012, after which, if no further defence use is identified for RAF Lyneham, the station will be closed and disposed of. The tactical communications wing, currently located at RAF Brize Norton, will be relocated to an alternative site by 2006. Concentrating the aircraft fleets at RAF Brize Norton will enable us to make the most efficient and effective use of the defence estate and allow the adoption of modern working practices.
	In respect of St Mawgan, where only the airfield was under consideration, we have concluded that this should be retained, subject to further work to explore the commercial opportunities for its use and so offset the cost of its operation to defence.
	The net effect of these changes, when complete, will be a reduction of around 1,780 service and 360 MoD civilian posts together with a move of around 620 personnel of the tactical communications wing. Approximately 580 lost posts relate directly to the closure of RAF Lyneham with the other manpower reductions a result of the introduction of the new manpower-efficient aircraft. At RAF Brize Norton, MoD manpower numbers will remain much as they are now. The number of contracted personnel has yet to be determined.
	We understand that this decision will be disappointing for the dedicated military and civilian personnel at Lyneham who have contributed so much to recent operations. We recognise too the disappointment that will be felt by those in the local area who give the station much-valued support. RAF Lyneham has a long and proud history. However we must make best use of defence resources, including by regular review the Defence Estate to ensure we retain no more than is required to meet defence needs.

Pensions: Public Sector

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their proposed £1.4 million lifetime limit for preferential tax treatment on the capital value of the pension which someone could receive will apply to:
	(a) the Prime Minister;
	(b) the Speaker of the House of Commons;
	(c) the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and
	(d) all other individuals whose pensions are paid from public funds;
	and, if the answer to any of these is no, why not.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refer the noble Lord to my Answer on 13 March 2003 to Lord Tebbit, Official Report, WA 190.

Plasma Transfusions

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 4 April (WA 154), why a recent case of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) was settled by the National Blood Service out of court; and how many other cases of TRALI have been settled and at what total cost to the Department of Health; and
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 4 April (WA 154), how the provision for future compensation claims relating to transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) will be reconciled with the continuing risk to patients of serious illness or death from fresh frozen plasma transfusions.

Lord Warner: The National Blood Authority (NBA) is a special health authority. In this case of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) the NBA admitted liability; It was advised, therefore that liability should be admitted and a settlement negotiated. This is a matter for the NBA.
	The reduction of incidents of TRALI continues to be a high priority. We have not undertaken an assessment on the cost of possible compensation claims for TRALI.

Plasma Transfusions

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they are not funding a commercially available fresh frozen plasma which is treated in such a way that there is no risk of SARS, or other unknown, potentially fatal emerging (lipid-enveloped) viruses, being transmitted; and
	Why they will not consider funding a pharmaceutically licensed, virally inactivated, pooled, fresh frozen plasma, which could eliminate the risk to patients of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) and the risk of infections such as HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

Lord Warner: The safety of blood and blood products used in the National Health Service is of paramount importance. Although most United Kingdom fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is not virally inactivated, high levels of safety are achieved by using single unit, as opposed to pooled plasma, by screening out potential high risk donors and by testing every unit of donated blood for the presence of infections such as HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C before it is released to hospitals. In addition, the National Blood Service is conducting an options appraisal of means to minimise the risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury from FFP.
	The decision taken to import FFP from the United States for young babies and children born after 1 January 1996 will provide additional protection to the most vulnerable group who will not have been exposed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy through the food chain. The National Blood Authority is currently involved in negotiating for supplies of FFP for this group of patients and plans to have it available later this year. A commercially produced FFP product, sourced from the United States, is also available for the National Health Service to purchase.
	The Government's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissue for Transplantation will continue to review the risk of new emerging viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) on the blood supply. There is no evidence that SARS can be transmitted by blood transfusion. John B

Plasma Transfusions

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 1 May (WA 126–27), why they do not think that high levels of safety are achieved through pooled plasma products, despite them being virally inactivated; and what evidence they have against pooled products to support this view; and
	Why they have recommended a virally inactivated fresh frozen plasma for specific sub-groups of transfusion patients when a licensed, virally inactivated product is commercially available; and
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Andrews on 1 April (WA 123–24), what scientific evidence they have to support the belief that non-virally inactivated single unit plasma (which is currently used in the United Kingdom) is preferable to virally inactivated pooled plasma.

Lord Warner: United Kingdom single unit fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is already a very safe product. To minimise the risk from viruses, it is made only from previously tested blood donors. Since the year 2000, an additional test for hepatitis C has been added. As a result the risk from a single unit of FFP is estimated to be one in 5 million for HIV and lower than one in 1 million for hepatitis C. As a precautionary measure all FFP from UK blood donors has been leucodepleted to remove the white cells which evidence suggests may carry the greatest risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The decision taken to import virally inactivated single unit FFP from the United States for young babies and children born after 1 January 1996 was made to provide additional protection to this most vulnerable group who have not been exposed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy through the food chain. Over 300,000 units of FFP are issued annually and it is only given in life-threatening situations to prevent or stop haemorrhage associated with abnormal blood clotting.
	Virally inactivated pooled FFP is subjected to a single virus reduction step. Two viruses (hepatitis A and parvovirus) are not susceptible to this form of inactivation. It is also possible that a new virus could appear that is not susceptible to the inactivation treatment and could spread to those transfused via the pooling of many donations.
	The Government's expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissue for Transplantation has considered the relative risks and safety of the different types of fresh frozen plasma available and has recommended the use of UK single unit FFP but clinicians are free to choose which product to use. John B

Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre, Manchester

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contacts health ministers have had with the Wolfson Molecular Imaging Centre in Manchester in regard to its potential, through a partnership between the University of Manchester, the Christie Hospital Trust and Cancer Research UK, to play the role of a national centre with networks of collaboration offered by Cancer Research UK and the Government's National Cancer Research Institute.

Lord Warner: Department of Health Ministers have had no such contacts.

Genetically Modified Foods

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	As regards genetically modified plants and food, whether there is evidence that antibiotic genes in modified plants could increase antibiotic resistance in humans; and
	As regards genetically modified plants and food, whether there is evidence that consumers of genetically modified foods are suffering increased allergies, especially through eating soya products; and
	How they assess the views of the Royal Society on the potential dangers of genetically modified foods in baby foods and to pregnant and breast-feeding mothers, elderly people and those with chronic diseases; and what are the risks of genetically modified DNA transferring itself to bacteria in the human gut, with adverse consequences for metabolism, organ development, and the immune and endocrine systems.

Lord Warner: All genetically modified foods approved for sale in the United Kingdom have undergone a rigorous pre-market safety assessment by independent scientific advisers. This is carried out on a case-by-case basis and takes into account the implications for certain sectors of the population, such as those groups mentioned above. These foods would not be approved if the safety tests raised concerns.
	Scientific evidence does not support the view that the antibiotic resistance genes in modified plants could increase antibiotic resistance in humans.
	There is no evidence that the consumption of genetically modified food has caused an increase in allegenicity.
	The available evidence does not indicate that GM DNA transfer to gut bacteria has adverse consequences for metabolism, organ development, and the immune and endocrine systems. DNA is consumed as part of our normal diet.

Cochlear Implants

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many, and which, primary care trusts currently inform adults requiring cochlear implants that there are no funds for the foreseeable future.

Lord Warner: While the Department of Health does not collect figures on the numbers of cases where funding for cochlear implants is delayed or refused, we understand that the Institute for Hearing Research surveys specialised centres about cochlear implant services. The last such survey was at the end of 2001. Primary care trusts came into existence in October 2001 and full-year figures for the services they fund are not yet available.

Great Western Railway Line Closure: 19 June 2003

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Great Western Railway line near Slough was closed for approximately 24 hours following the fire on 19 June; and who gave the instruction to close it for so long; and
	Whether the decision to close the Great Western Railway line on 19 June was reviewed at any point in the ensuing 24 hours; and
	Whether, following the closure of the Great Western Railway line on 19 June, any assessment was made of the safety implications and cost to travellers of using alternative routes or modes of transport.

Lord Davies of Oldham: On 19 June the Berkshire Fire Brigade discovered that oxy-acetylene cylinders were involved in a fire at a residential property close to the Great Western Railway line at Slough which were in danger of explosion.
	The line was closed following a risk assessment, which included the economic and social costs, by the Berkshire Fire Brigade of the initial and ongoing incident carried out by their incident commander and was taken in accordance with the Fire Services Inspectorate's guidance on oxy-acetylene cylinders. Network Rail has advised that the Berkshire Fire Brigade required it to close the line.
	Early on the afternoon of 20 June, the Berkshire Fire Brigade, with the assistance of British Oxygen Company experts, re-examined the oxy-acetylene cylinders involved in the fire for any sign of "hot spotting". Shortly afterwards the line was re-opened.

River Craft Safety Checks

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What safety checks are made, and by which body, on river craft operating on the River Mersey in all its reaches.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) carries out an annual survey and at least one general inspection of all domestic passenger ships carrying more than 12 passengers. The MCA also undertakes random inspections on a cross-section of domestic non-passenger vessels in commercial use.
	Navigation authority and competent harbour authority safety checks also apply. The Mersey Docks and Harbours Board is the competent harbour authority for the Port of Liverpool which covers the River Mersey up to Warrington Bridge. It carries out safety checks for vessels over 50 gross tons including carriage of VHF radio; carriage of radar; vessels with mechanical, equipment or structural defects; and vessels carrying hazardous cargoes.
	The Manchester Ship Canal Company is the navigation authority for the River Mersey from Warrington Bridge to the Mersey Weir at Irlam on the Manchester ship canal. Pleasure vessels and those not classed and required to register for operation in the harbour and port of Manchester, are inspected by an approved marine surveyor for a certificate of seaworthiness. The harbour master of the Manchester Ship Canal Company has powers to inspect vessels.

River Craft Safety Checks

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What safety checks are made, and by which body, on river craft operating on the River Thames in all its reaches.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) carries out an annual survey and at least one general inspection of all domestic passenger ships carrying more than 12 passengers. The MCA also undertakes random inspections on a cross-section of domestic non-passenger vessels in commercial use.
	Navigation authority and competent harbour authority safety checks also apply. The Port of London Authority (PLA) is the competent harbour authority for the River Thames as far as Teddington Lock and is responsible for the administration of the craft registration system and "fitness for purpose" inspections for all vessels submitted for initial registration and subsequent renewal. All commercial vessels that fall within the scope of the by-laws and PLA vessels are inspected. Power-driven vessels are inspected annually and non-power driven craft biennially.
	Above Teddington Lock, the navigation authority is the Environment Agency. Independent marine surveyors examine all craft for issue of a boat safety certificate. All power driven vessels and houseboats are liable to informal or formal check inspections by navigation officers.

Regional Airports

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What priority is given to expanding regional airports to redress the economic imbalance between the South East and the rest of the United Kingdom; and what consultation Ministers have had with the regional airports on this matter.

Lord Davies of Oldham: In the 1998 integrated transport White Paper A New Deal for Transport—Better For Everyone; the Government stated that they would:
	"encourage the growth of regional airports to meet local demand for air travel where consistent with sustainable development principles".
	We remain committed to that objective and will set out our proposals for regional airports in the forthcoming air transport White Paper.
	The consultation which we have undertaken to inform preparation of the White Paper has been one of the biggest ever undertaken on transport and has included discussions with regional airports themselves and a wide range of regional and national stakeholders, business representatives, environmental and residents' groups. The consultation concluded on 30 June 2003.

Light Dues

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to modify or end light dues.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government issued a consultation document, entitled Light Dues Review: Meeting the Costs of Marine Aids to Navigation, last summer seeking the views of the maritime industry on the structure of UK light dues. One of our aims was to see whether we could identify changes to the current structure that would distribute costs more accurately among users.
	The results of the consultation exercise were inconclusive, with no consensus of opinion on the way forward. In March the Government announced a programme of further work on a number of issues, which will allow further consideration of options for modifying the present light dues system. We have no plans to end light dues, and we remain committed to a cost-recovery system.